I think this case is important - it's not like they are cutting Apple out of the loop as the OS is actually bought.

I think this is a good way to see how legally binding EULA's really are. I would hope that they are not binding at all - Just imagine Ford telling you that after you bought its cars you could only drive it on Sundays on lanes that it has certified safe for the car.

Ofcourse, Apple should not have to provide (hardware) support if its terms are breached, but that is a different thing.

I think this is a good way to see how legally binding EULA's really are. I would hope that they are not binding at all - Just imagine Ford telling you that after you bought its cars you could only drive it on Sundays on lanes that it has certified safe for the car.

EULA's are legally binding. It's already been ruled on many times throughout the U.S. See Blizzard v Bnetd and MDY v Blizzard for two examples. And a really great example that has many facts on point in this case is Altera v Clear Logic. There are circumstances in which a specific EULA or a clause in an EULA may be voided, but overall, the chances of Psystar winning this particular case are infinitesimal.

I think this case is important - it's not like they are cutting Apple out of the loop as the OS is actually bought.

The thing is that Pystar are really paying OEM / Upgrade pricing because Apple's model has allowed them to keep the retail price at something that resembles Microsoft's OEM / Upgrade price. Pystar are not an Apple OEM, they have signed no agreements that bind them to anything as per Microsoft's OEM agreements, yet they are purchasing the product at OEM equivalent pricing levels.

I've said this before but if Apple were to lose this case its really a simple proposition for them anyway. They whack the retail price up to match Microsoft's retail pricing for "Windows Ultimate Makes Your Coffee And Massages Your Feet Edition" and provide "loyalty discounts" that bring that price back down to the current retail price for registered owners of Apple manufactured Macs. That way Pystar have to pay more for the OS so Apple still make their profit whether they are selling the hardware or not.

He never mentioned Apple losing money: just that, with the OS being partially costed with the hardware purchase, that the natural price of the OS without the hardware associated with it (Apple-made hardware, for the TUE) would naturally cost more: Psystar is living off the back of Apple with their shenanigans, and that's the crux of the matter, and if, for some weird reason, despite all the European legal "rights" claimed that you believe make sense (but, this is the US, and we don't do things in exactly the same way here, so what goes in Europe, unless the laws are identical, means absolutely nothing) somehow get into this case in the US and forces Apple to ignore what Psystar is doing, then Apple would want to do what the OP is stating: raise the price for those that purchase it for non-Apple-made machines, and reward legitimate Mac owners with a price discount for upgrade copies. Since Apple is in no way close to having a monopoly in PC hardware anywhere in the world that I'm aware of, there's no chance that they wouldn't be able to do this, if, for some reason, the court ruled that Psystar had a legal leg to stand on in the US.

Microsoft has always wanted to sell their OS for every Tom, Dick and Harry machine, as they've never been a PC manufacturer selling their own PC hardware: that's just their business model, and it seems for the most part, that has worked out rather well for them, regardless of whatever things they've done in the past. It's very unlikely that any court is going to force Microsoft to abandon their business model and tell them they can only sell their OS to run on a machine that they manufacture, not even getting into other things that could pop up.

By the same token, Apple's model is to do an all-included model of hardware + software, and that's how they're competing against everyone else: it is also similarly unlikely that (at least in the US, not sure about the idiot EU authorities) the court is going to order them to change their business model. What Psystar is attempting to do is force Apple to change their business model, with no agreement of Apple of wanting to do that, by reselling OS X as though they were acting as general third parties for Microsoft's OS for generic hardware.

Of course, I realize this is all rehashing the issue, but it is apparent that it has failed to sink in as to how things really are. All the evidence from the past indicates to me that Psystar is going to end up on the losing end of this battle, and deservedly so. Why on earth should any company want to have their brand tarnished by having part of their product associated with officially unsupported, officially unrecognized machines, where Apple may find themselves the brunt of complaints for resolving functionality issues between the part that they create (OS X) not working with the part they have no control of (the PC that Psystar provides) and that's not remotely right. There's more to this whole thing than just whether or not Apple makes money or as much money on the sale of the OS that they develop, when used by a third party without their permission: there's also the dilution of brand and related things, and it seems you're conveniently ignoring this, pointedly.

MS-DOS would only work 100% correctly on IBM branded PCs until Digital reverse engineered the BIOS.

MS would make almost certainly make PCs if antitrust legislation allowed them too.

Well this statement in itself is somewhat of a rewrite, when you factor in that at the time of MS-DOS, we neither had the computing industry we have today, nor would it have created any ripples what so ever had Microsoft chosen the same path as Apple. Anti-trust issues evolved much later in their life.

Apple does sell OSX, with the intention of the OS to be installed on Apple products. I have to admit ignorance on this subject as I am not an Apple user, but as far as I know Apple does not seem to require any ties to the hardware when installing OSX. Would it be reasonable to ask then why Apple does not require a hardware product serial number to be entered when installing the OS?

Apple does sell OSX, with the intention of the OS to be installed on Apple products. I have to admit ignorance on this subject as I am not an Apple user, but as far as I know Apple does not seem to require any ties to the hardware when installing OSX. Would it be reasonable to ask then why Apple does not require a hardware product serial number to be entered when installing the OS?

It's obvious that Apple sells the stand-alone copies of OSX with the intent that they are to be installed on Apple computers. But intent is not legally binding.

There are some minor protections that have to be overcome to install OSX on non-Apple computers. But there are several common workarounds, at least three commercial efforts including Pystar.

But as long as the workarounds aren't used for making illegal copies or other copyright violations, then there's nothing wrong with it.

It was Compaq, not Digital. Also, there is nothing stopping MS from making PCs, There is lots of competition in the PC market. They were allowed to make video game consoles, which isn't much different.

He never mentioned Apple losing money: just that, with the OS being partially costed with the hardware purchase, that the natural price of the OS without the hardware associated with it (Apple-made hardware, for the TUE) would naturally cost more:

...and again, you provide no proof whatsoever that Mac OS X's price is subsidised by the hardware. You THINK it is that way, but you provide no proof. It could very well be true, but just saying "naturally" doesn't make it so.

So, again I ask: where is the proof that Mac OS X is sold at a lower price than would be the case if Apple had no hardware business?

(Note: I agree that "at a loss" was a faulty statement in my previous comment)

Can you actually prove that Apple is selling OS X at profit? Until one have the financial details from Apple itself, I believe both claims can be true or both claims can be false. You're just being hypocrite here. You know that he can't prove it and you also know that you can't prove it otherwise.

Can you actually prove that Apple is selling OS X at profit? Until one have the financial details from Apple itself, I believe both claims can be true or both claims can be false. You're just being hypocrite here. You know that he can't prove it and you also know that you can't prove it otherwise.

Uhm, I'm not the one making any claims here. Like I said in the post, it could very well be true that OS X is sold at a loss or at a lower price due to hardware. Could very well be.

I'm not saying either one is true.

However, Apple people always claim as a fact that OS X is sold at a lower price due to Apple's hardware business, yet no one has ever provided any proof for this statement. I just want to see the proof backing that one up.

The thing is that Pystar are really paying OEM / Upgrade pricing because Apple's model has allowed them to keep the retail price at something that resembles Microsoft's OEM / Upgrade price. Pystar are not an Apple OEM, they have signed no agreements that bind them to anything as per Microsoft's OEM agreements, yet they are purchasing the product at OEM equivalent pricing levels.

That would be interesting to see. OEM pricing for Windows, to real OEM's, is only like USD $25 or so. You have to remember that OEM's like Dell, HP, Toshiba, IBM, etc. are where most people get their computers from, and they get the best deal. SO as an OEM, Psystar is paying much more for OS X than they would for Microsoft products. Do not confuse the hobbiest OEM pricing, such as is found at retail sites, with what OEM's actually get.

Bob you're correct on this. Large OEM's who have agreements with Microsoft are sold branded OEM COA (Certificate of Authenticity) license stickers in batch lots, and they are allowed to burn Their own Custom OS Restore disks that have their branding and any custom preinstalled drivers, and software that they want to include.

The smaller OEM companies have to pay a higher price and they normally buy their OEM sets in 5 or 10 packs from authorized microsoft resellers at a price that is slightly cheaper per unit than the individual OEM packs that are sold at places like Frys, Newegg, ETC.

Psystar is buying Retail OSX Leopard install disks and paying the full retail price for each retail box that they purchase.

I know I was able to get my retail boxed copy of OSX Leopard used off ebay for around $60 including shipping.

This helped me to keep the costs down when I built D945GCLF Intel Atom based Hackintosh system.

I blogged about the details for it and have some pictures of the system if anyone is interested.

The thing is that Pystar are really paying OEM / Upgrade pricing because Apple's model has allowed them to keep the retail price at something that resembles Microsoft's OEM / Upgrade price. Pystar are not an Apple OEM, they have signed no agreements that bind them to anything as per Microsoft's OEM agreements, yet they are purchasing the product at OEM equivalent pricing levels.

OEMs sign agreements with software manufacturers in order to qualify for volume pricing. Pystar does not receive nor has asked for any such pricing agreement with Apple.

Secondly, you don't need a signed or negotiated agreement with Microsoft in order buy copies of Windows for installed resale. I would actually guess that most small-scale builders, on the scale of Pystar, have no such agreement.

Microsoft have shown time and time again they aren't this smart, but what do you think is the best way to hamstring Apple's market position? They make a good few metric f--ktonnes on their hardware sale, so I think it would be smart for Microsoft to try and break the tie between OS X and an Apple computer. You eliminate some of their hardware sale when the curious buy a copy of OS X, but the reluctance to switch isn't out of money concerns - they can keep on FUDding the market up while Apple's profits drop from people opting to buy the OS but not the hardware.

I wouldn't condone such action on Microsoft's part, but the idea is certainly an attractive one.

You're being intentionally thick. Legally purchased? Yes. For what end intent? Is it to be applied to previously owned Mac Hardware or their own clone hardware that violates the purchase of that Software?

First, it is not OK in terms of US copyright law S117 to make copies or modifications as a necessary step in using software, and then to sell on the mods or copies without the consent of the copyright holder.

Installing is making a copy. One that is lawful, but it is making a copy. So it is not OK for Psystar to do an install and sell the result, even if they sell the retail copy with it. It almost certainly must be structured like this: they transfer ownership of the machine and the retail copy, and then they do the installation for a fee and ship the result.

The intent for which the retail copy is purchased is irrelevant. There is no law saying that only the pure of heart may buy OSX at retail, and that they may only use it in pursuit of Godly ends.

This Open(7) box really makes the single-processor Mac Pro look like an unreasonable purchase (I'm not comparing it with the dual-processor, because it's in a completely different market, with no direct competitor and an exorbitant price).

Of course, Mac apologists will downvote this, saying that you don't get the exquisitely engineered case, because that is worth the 1000+ USD premium over the Open(7), right?

You can't even get a Blu-ray drive with the Mac. Any Mac, for that matter. Even Acer gives that.

You can't get Bluetooth out-of-the-box with the Mac Pro and that is just silly.

You cannot configure the single-processor Mac Pro with more than 6GB of RAM, whilst the Open(7) can have 12GB and for a reasonable price.

And the frankly retarded video adapters, 29 dollars each, get them while they're hot!

Look, I love the design of Macs and there *are* some things you can have in the single-processor Mac Pro, but not in this PC (multiple graphics cards, for one), but with OSX available on such PCs as the Open(7), the premium price is completely unjustifiable, even to the most twisted Mac-loving mind. And that's what Apple is afraid of.

Yeah, and the single-processor Mac Pro is now limited I think to 8GB (before it wasn't crippled that way) not 6GB. Nobody gets the single processor Mac Pro though, historically they sell more of the dual-processor model; which in comparison to other workstations of it's kind, is not too high priced.

(Dell sells a dual-Xeon workstation for more, for example, and considering that it's running Unix(tm), it may be fair to compare it to Unix workstations costing more with similar performance or hardware. With the added plus that not only can it run Unix software, it can run Photoshop and Office (not that you need a Mac Pro to run Office!))

You really have to admire these guys' cheek. They are really going for it, with a sense of humor too. Its a wonderful soap opera, though of course with very serious undertones.

This thing is not looking sustainable for Apple. Its getting to be time for plan B. Which could be one of the following:

1) Give up and just let Hackintosh makers go to it. Lose at least some hardware sales or margins, as people refuse to buy Macs just to get OSX, when they can get it a cheaper and better way.

2) Raise the retail price to Euro 500 or so. Kill retail sales of OSX and lose the associated margin.

3) Go to product activation or some form of locking to make only those machines sourced from Apple are possible for installations. A lot of work, and now the community has the bit between its teeth, its going to be a continual war. Doubtful if its worth it.

4) Set up an OEM program. This would let them get more software sales and have some control over the hardware that it is preinstalled on.

The Mac fraternity is obsessed with the clone program of the last century. If they choose (4) they are going to have to do it smarter than Apple did it then. The main problem then was that it was not a real properly run OEM program, and it was not accompanied by steps to make their hardware business competitive.

Were it me, I'd be thinking that the right exit strategy would be to drop all the nonsense about mandatory hardware/software integration, and split the business into hardware and software divisions, and turn them loose. The hardware division would become a Windows and OSX OEM, and it would sell both OSs based on design, glitz, thinness, at a premium price. They will sell very well. The software division would compete with MS and probably increase share significantly, more than making up for any losses in hardware.

Basically, at the moment they are limiting hardware sales in the name of favoring the software sales, and limiting the software sales in the name of favoring the harware sales. Both suffer as a result. What they need to do is cut each loose to maximize its potential.

Yes, I know you Apple fans would not buy Macs with Windows on, nor would you buy OEM machines with OSX on. That is not the point. You would not have to. You are not the only valuable potential customers for Apple, and will just have to get used to the fact.

2) Raise the retail price to Euro 500 or so. Kill retail sales of OSX and lose the associated margin.

What about this version:

2) Raise the retail price to Euro 500 or so. Add an upgrade SKU that sells for less, like Euro 89. Take a hit on retail sales of OSX, but then you can say that even the cheapest Mac includes Euro 500 free software.

It's already unquestionably illegal for clone makers to install upgrade copies on computers without valid full licenses, yet all Apple computer users will by definition already have full licenses to use the discounted "upgrade" pricing.